Multiple BMMCC & BMPCC used on new Bourne sequel

[hmcindie]

On 8/3/2016 at 2:34 AM, Hans Punk said:

In a nutshell, an article highlighting a product used on a film's production (during its marketing period) should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is most likely going to be a glowing review, when accompanied with promotional stills from said film.

Your text implies that Provideocoalition gets money from publishing an article that features the BMCC. Yes you said later that you don't imply it, but also at the same time implying it.

Did they or did they not use BMCC cameras? Yes. Did they or did they not find them practical? Yes. This is pretty much what the article says. Are you disagreeing with that?

If everything is marketing then what you are doing is marketing too right? Promoting great cameras like the ARRI as some 'mythical objects that will enhance the look of everything' and all the other ones are pure shit.

And then Act of Valor. Yes, they did promote the 5d a lot afterwards but they didn't choose originally (when they began shooting) the camera because Canon sold it to them (it wasn't designed to do what they did with it). So which comes first? In these kinds of budgets it always comes down to 'production first'. Those production decisions are never made with a certain "promotional angle" to use, unless you do a microbudget indiefilm. Choosing a director or an actor are promotional decisions, never the camera or a certain tool used in the production. They might be promoted afterwards depending on different factors.

They do market and promote ARRI and RED cameras too, you know? But no one decides to use a certain camera because "Hey, we can promote this camera!".

[Michael Coffee]

16 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

 

 

On 03/08/2016 at 9:04 AM, Hans Punk said:

 

The BM cameras are obviously a great fit for modern production use, especially since shooting compressed raw gives a very comparative quality to even the highest end cinema cameras. They can deliver fantastic images in the right hands. Saying that, at least one of the BM shots in the Bourne trailer sticks out like a sore thumb to my eyes.

This quick cut was the one I really noticed..

 

 

[Hans Punk]

3 hours ago, hmcindie said:

Your text implies that Provideocoalition gets money from publishing an article that features the BMCC. Yes you said later that you don't imply it, but also at the same time implying it.

Provideocoalition gets revenue from renting and selling products through one of their many sister companies: Filmtools.com. - so it's a yes, and a no. Whilst the article itself was not an obvious marketing ploy, it (and many other sites like it) can financially benefit from featuring an article with glowing reviews of a product that they themselves rent/sell, or their site sponsors do.

I was only highlighting the fact that it would be extremely unlikely to hear anything but positive experiences of a product, when that site has a vested interest to not rock the boat with it's sponsors/ affiliates. 'Pinch of salt' is what I'm saying....any website that has sponsors, means you are being 'sold' something.

Did they or did they not use BMCC cameras? Yes. Did they or did they not find them practical? Yes. This is pretty much what the article says. Are you disagreeing with that?

Obviously not disagreeing, I was merely voicing that they may not have been the best camera choice for inclusion in a 120 million dollar movie's key action scenes that also featured heavily in the international trailers for the film. Just my opinion from the shots in the trailer - nothing more.

If everything is marketing then what you are doing is marketing too right? Promoting great cameras like the ARRI as some 'mythical objects that will enhance the look of everything' and all the other ones are pure shit.

All cameras are shit....but only a few are pure shit

The only camera I came close to promoting was a WW2 era wind-up film camera...a camera that from my experience would have delivered better image results than how they employed those BM cameras. This is somewhat subjective of course, but I articulated my reasons for why..based on a certain experience of having to match digital and film in the past.

And then Act of Valor. Yes, they did promote the 5d a lot afterwards but they didn't choose originally (when they began shooting) the camera because Canon sold it to them (it wasn't designed to do what they did with it). So which comes first? In these kinds of budgets it always comes down to 'production first'. Those production decisions are never made with a certain "promotional angle" to use, unless you do a microbudget indiefilm. Choosing a director or an actor are promotional decisions, never the camera or a certain tool used in the production. They might be promoted afterwards depending on different factors.

They do market and promote ARRI and RED cameras too, you know? But no one decides to use a certain camera because "Hey, we can promote this camera!".

Ah I see..think I've confused matters with my incoherent and seemingly inaccurate Act of Valor reference...apologies. I was trying to target the disproportionate amount of attention often given to prosumer camera use in well known movies. It seems that a larger chunk of that film was indeed shot on DSLR's than I was aware...must admit I've only ever seen the trailer and snippets on YT, it kind of felt like a cynical US army recruitment video to me. I guess if you put a $30k lens on a PL converted 5D and the know how and talent to shoot around the constraints of a compressed format, then yes - it's going to look great. I don't seem to recall that the cinema primes/ mirror removing and permanent PL mount modifications being the talk of the town in the indie 5D filmmaker crowd, it was simply all about that 'camera'. Interestingly (or not) the trailer for that film seems to include a majority of the F950 and film material. 

My only concern is that some forum people get excited to read headlines and 'fluff' articles that and come away with a false impression that by picking up a certain brand of prosumer camera, they are somehow 'legitimised' by it's 'shot on what' profile. In reality these cameras are often thrown around, burnt and pissed on. The most wonderful images since the DSLR indie days have always been where these camera types were NOT treated like throwaway cameras. From my observation of some of those trailer action shots from Bourne - they did a disservice of what those cameras are capable of....to my eyes at least, those few shots look bloody terrible for inclusion in a 120 million dollar feature film.

   

[andy lee]

well I went to see Bourne last weekend and the cuts are so fast and the camera is moving so much that you have no idea what camera is what on the big screen , there are no shots that jump out as being bad or not fitting with the previous Alexa footage , it works they did a good job , now on most major films they are using what ever camera suits each shot / set up...... Bond Spectre was the same Film and Digital combined and multiple camera and formats Anamorphic , Spherical Alexa 65 and 35 all made it into Spectre

[Bioskop.Inc]

IMHO anything promoting the BMPCC [or BMMCC] over 4K 8-bit cameras is a good thing.

I know no camera is perfect (especially in the prosumer market), but in my experience the Pocket was the image & codec i'd been longing for ever since I had to take a hit & demote myself to using H264. It's not 4K, but when I saw the image quality and started working with ProRes (let alone RAW) I knew I'd finally come home - no more wasting time on dreaming about which camera to own next. Some people might say it's only 1080p, but with an anmorphic lens it ends up being way over the standard Cinema DCP 2K (2.39) & you end up squeezing the image down rather than up. I still have my 60d for taking pictures & that's why I bought a hybrid in the first place - the video mode was always going to get replaced with something better sooner or later and now I have the best of both worlds.

As far as marketing/advertising etc., of course one must always beware with these capitalists! But when they bring people's attention to something good, i'm more forgiving - at least for the time being.

[JazzBox]

12 minutes ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

IMHO anything promoting the BMPCC [or BMMCC] over 4K 8-bit cameras is a good thing.

I know no camera is perfect (especially in the prosumer market), but in my experience the Pocket was the image & codec i'd been longing for ever since I had to take a hit & demote myself to using H264. It's not 4K, but when I saw the image quality and started working with ProRes (let alone RAW) I knew I'd finally come home - no more wasting time on dreaming about which camera to own next. Some people might say it's only 1080p, but with an anmorphic lens it ends up being way over the standard Cinema DCP 2K (2.39) & you end up squeezing the image down rather than up. I still have my 60d for taking pictures & that's why I bought a hybrid in the first place - the video mode was always going to get replaced with something better sooner or later and now I have the best of both worlds.

As far as marketing/advertising etc., of course one must always beware with these capitalists! But when they bring people's attention to something good, i'm more forgiving - at least for the time being.

I had the Pocket and now the Micro. It's fantastic, I don't really need the 4K, but it is a "cinema" camera. You need time to set up it, time to swap batteries etc... and for rush - or low budget / no budget - gigs is not the best candidate. 
I find the GH4 (and now the G7) far more easy to manage, they share the same lens park and I use 90% of the time the Panasonic instead of the Micro. Of course I love the internal Micro's ProRes, it is just awesome and quite easy to grade in post while with Panasonic you have to nail 85% of the look in camera, because the V-Log, even recorded in the BM Video Assist is not something I use on the GH4.

In my small experience LOG needs 10 bits and GH4 (or G7) are not that better recorded in ProRes, the codec is great in "Natural" setting, recorded internally and I use them in that way. 
 

[Bioskop.Inc]

17 hours ago, JazzBox said:

I had the Pocket and now the Micro. It's fantastic, I don't really need the 4K, but it is a "cinema" camera. You need time to set up it, time to swap batteries etc... and for rush - or low budget / no budget - gigs is not the best candidate. 
I find the GH4 (and now the G7) far more easy to manage, they share the same lens park and I use 90% of the time the Panasonic instead of the Micro. Of course I love the internal Micro's ProRes, it is just awesome and quite easy to grade in post while with Panasonic you have to nail 85% of the look in camera, because the V-Log, even recorded in the BM Video Assist is not something I use on the GH4.

In my small experience LOG needs 10 bits and GH4 (or G7) are not that better recorded in ProRes, the codec is great in "Natural" setting, recorded internally and I use them in that way. 
 

I'm fine with the Pocket & don't understand why people find it hard to use - set the WB & set the ASA/ISO & then all you need is to tweek the F Stop and/or the ND. The battery life is a not a point of contention, as when you swap the SD card, you swap the battery - 45mins is fine & you get used to switching the unit off/on when not in use. I've used it for Run'n'Gun for shooting concerts & in more controlled settings - practice & getting to know your camera, that's the key. And it's nothing like a DSLR & that's what stumps most people - learning a new technique/camera is fun IMHO.

[JazzBox]

1 hour ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

I'm fine with the Pocket & don't understand why people find it hard to use - set the WB & set the ASA/ISO & then all you need is to tweek the F Stop and/or the ND. The battery life is a not a point of contention, as when you swap the SD card, you swap the battery - 45mins is fine & you get used to switching the unit off/on when not in use. I've used it for Run'n'Gun for shooting concerts & in more controlled settings - practice & getting to know your camera, that's the key. And it's nothing like a DSLR & that's what stumps most people - learning a new technique/camera is fun IMHO.

When I have a single / two scenario I use it and I love it. I have to rig it with the BM Video Assist (that is quite nice) and it is a little less easy to work with in places where we have permits. 
When I have to in 4, 5, 6 different places in 3 hours and have to switch from 3200K to 5400, from 200 to 800 ISO etc... I find the G7 more "fast"
Of course I do love the ProRes it gaves me and I find it very Arri-like